Early Writings Error

[stephan happy huller]

On the main page of 'Early Writings' you place the Talmud c. 217 CE. I think you mean the Mishnah

[Peter Kirby]

I think you have a good point there.

Suggest a range of dating to replace it with?

[hjalti]

The Talmud was actually written by the 17th century Jesuit monk Alfonso da Bologna, so I would put it in the range 1640-1670.

[semiopen]

I asked my Rabbi his opinion about when he thought the final redaction of the Talmud was and he looked at me like I had two heads. Apparently the issue never comes up at Haredi Yeshivas.

Mishnah -

The Mishnah was redacted in 220 CE by Rabbi Yehudah haNasi when, according to the Talmud, the persecution of the Jews and the passage of time raised the possibility that the details of the oral traditions dating from Pharisaic times (536 BCE – 70 CE) would be forgotten.

I have some doubts about this on general principles.

Talmud

The Talmud has two components. The first part is the Mishnah (Hebrew: משנה, c. 200 CE), the written compendium of Rabbinic Judaism's Oral Torah (Torah meaning "Instruction", "Teaching" in Hebrew). The second part is the Gemara (c. 500 CE), an elucidation of the Mishnah and related Tannaitic writings that often ventures onto other subjects and expounds broadly on the Hebrew Bible. The term Talmud can be used to mean either the Gemara alone, or the Mishnah and Gemara as printed together.

Funny how the Talmud article drops 20 years from the Mishnah date. The date Happy mentions is 217 CE. I think this relates to

According to the Provençal Rabbi and scholar, Rabbi Abraham ben David, the Mishnah was redacted by Rabbi Yehudah haNasi, also known as Rabbi Judah the Prince, in anno mundi 3,949, equivalent to the year 500 of the Seleucid Era. This date corresponds to 189 CE.[8]

- from the Mishnah wiki

Hopefully there is more evidence than this.

Tradition ascribes the compilation of the Babylonian Talmud in its present form to two Babylonian sages, Rav Ashi and Ravina. Rav Ashi was president of the Sura Academy from 375 to 427 CE. The work begun by Rav Ashi was completed by Ravina, who is traditionally regarded as the final Amoraic expounder. Accordingly, traditionalists argue that Ravina’s death in 499 CE is the latest possible date for the completion of the redaction of the Talmud. However, even on the most traditional view a few passages are regarded as the work of a group of rabbis who edited the Talmud after the end of the Amoraic period, known as the Saboraim or Rabbanan Savora'e (meaning "reasoners" or "considerers").

Sort of amazes me that my Rabbi wouldn't know this.

I think the wiki quote is dubious because The Formation of the Babylonian Talmud
http://www.amazon.com/Formation-Babylon ... d+stammaim

by David_Weiss_Halivni who seems to be the current cool guy in Rabbinics and he says it was redacted by the Stammaim probably in the middle of the 8th century.

I'm not an expert in this and welcome any corrections or clarifications but figuring a three hundred year error in the traditional view of the Gemara, it seems there is probably also some issue with the Mishna.

[semiopen]

I mentioned in the Synagogue Origin thread that the Talmud was actually not written down until much later than the average person might expect. After all wasn't the whole point of the Talmud to write the oral tradition/law that came from Moses or whoever, because the dumb fucks in coming generations would not be able to remember it?

At the time I posted that, I'd forgotten what these guys were called (talk about dumb fucks) and said scribes even though knowing that the term is a contradiction.

Rabbi Halivni calls these guys the Reciters / Tannaim.

Tanna "repeaters", "teachers"[1]) were the Rabbinic sages whose views are recorded in the Mishnah, from approximately 10-220 CE. The period of the Tannaim, also referred to as the Mishnaic period, lasted about 210 years. It came after the period of the Zugot ("pairs"), and was immediately followed by the period of the Amoraim ("interpreters")[2]
The root tanna (תנא) is the Talmudic Aramaic equivalent for the Hebrew root shanah (שנה), which also is the root-word of Mishnah. The verb shanah (שנה) literally means "to repeat [what one was taught]" and is used to mean "to learn".

These are considered the guys with the brains, comparatively speaking, but there are two ways the term can be understood.

TANNA, TANNAIM – The Anchor Bible Dictionary - http://www.biblicalwritings.com/tanna-t ... ictionary/

Second, the term can refer to the professional repeaters or reciters of the rabbinic schools. Publication during the tannaitic and amoraic periods was oral and depended, therefore, on tannaim who were, for all practical purposes, “living books” (Lieberman 1950: 83–99). Though some written records were kept, these bore no official status. Instead, when the version of a teaching needed to be checked it was the tannaim who were consulted. Accordingly, they were valued for their capacity to memorize, not for their intelligence.

One of the centerpieces of Halivni's argument is the amount of stuff the Reciters forgot. The idea is that the older stuff in the Talmud is where the sages are identified - "Rabbi Semiopen said..." The anonymous stuff (which is where the term Stammaim comes from) is after the Amoraic period.

Orality and the Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud by Yaakov Elman (Oral Tradition, 14/1 (1999): 52-99)
can be downloaded for free.

I haven't read this carefully but Dr Elman might be too conservative in his dates; only grudgingly saying maybe the seventh century. This might be because he is writing in 1999 which is starting to be awhile ago.

Regarding the Mishnah, it also seems not to have been written down:

http://people.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Talm ... .html#Comp

All ancient sources are in agreement that the Mishnah was compiled by Rabbi Judah the "Prince," before his death around 217 C.E. On the author see below. It should be emphasized that--contrary to a view that appears in many histories and introductions, and which is based on the writings of medieval Spanish Jewish authorities--this redaction did not involve writing down the traditions, but merely the determining and organizing of a fixed text that was subsequently disseminated by memory. It is clear from the internal evidence of the Talmud that the teachings of the Rabbis continued to be studied orally throughout the Talmudic era, and this continued to be the practice in the Babylonian academies well into the middle ages.

The 217 CE date (I'm still not sure where this exists here) therefore comes from the death date of "our holy master" although its too bad he couldn't have finished it a year or so before and relaxed.

Regarding Peter's question, I'd change whatever the phrase is to fifth-eighth century CE.

[DCHindley]

The 217 CE date (I'm still not sure where this exists here) therefore comes from the death date of "our holy master" although its too bad he couldn't have finished it a year or so before and relaxed.

Regarding Peter's question, I'd change whatever the phrase is to fifth-eighth century CE.

I always understood that the Mishna was "written down" around 200 CE (although internal evidence suggests that at least some of it was written down earlier) and the "Talmud" between the 5th & 8th century (this almost universally refers to Babylonian Talmud). Offhand I am not sure about the date of the Jerusalem Talmud, which I think is somewhat earlier (4th-5th century CE?).

DCH

[semiopen]

The 217 CE date (I'm still not sure where this exists here) therefore comes from the death date of "our holy master" although its too bad he couldn't have finished it a year or so before and relaxed.

Regarding Peter's question, I'd change whatever the phrase is to fifth-eighth century CE.

I always understood that the Mishna was "written down" around 200 CE (although internal evidence suggests that at least some of it was written down earlier) and the "Talmud" between the 5th & 8th century (this almost universally refers to Babylonian Talmud). Offhand I am not sure about the date of the Jerusalem Talmud, which I think is somewhat earlier (4th-5th century CE?).

DCH

I thought the references I've provided make it clear that they (Mishna and Gemara) weren't written. I was stunned to see this myself.

The dates for these things are all highly dubious and circular. I made a snide comment about the quote the wiki gives from Abraham ben David, on further reading it turns out that what I considered a joke is considered very critical evidence.

The traditional date for the final redaction (not writing) of the Babylonian Talmud is 427. This is derived from a famous statement in Baba Mezi'a 86a - http://www.come-and-hear.com/babamezia/ ... ia_86.html

Rabbi and R. Nathan conclude the Mishnah, R. Ashi and Rabina1 conclude [authentic] teaching,2 and a sign thereof is the verse, Until I went to the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end.'3

Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
1. [According to Sherira Gaon, Letter, p. 95, (ed. Lewin) the reference is to Rabina II, son of R. Huna.]
2. Rashi: Before Rabbi, the Mishnah was in no systematic order, each Tanna teaching in which order he desired. Rabbi compiled and arranged these teachings in a systematized order, admitting those which he considered authentic and rejecting others. This compilation formed the basic code of Jewish law (though Weiss, Dor. II, p. 183, maintains that he never intended it to be authoritative); subsequently scholars might define and explain it, and deduce new laws from it, but not dispute with it. In the course of time the discussions on the Mishnah grew to very large dimensions, and it was the work of Rabina and R. Ashi to compile the huge mass of accumulated material and give it an orderly arrangement. This is expressed by saying that they were at the end of authentic teaching (hora'ah), i.e., they edited the Talmud. [The signification of the term hora'ah is obscure and has been variously explained: (a) transmission of the oral Law; (b) the insertion by scholars of halachic matter in the Talmud; (c) the right to change the Talmud whether in substance or form; (d) legislative activity, v. Kaplan, op. cit., pp. 34 and 289ff.]

Rav Ashi died in 427 CE (which I think is the 5th century). However there were at least two Ravinas (the latter dying about 500 which is getting into the 6th century) and the statement itself is pretty much just wrong. However in my suggested dates, with my well known generosity, I throw the traditionalists a bone and say 5th century.

In the introduction to Halivni's book, Jeffrey Rubinstein goes through the evolution of Halivni's thinking.

A table is also produced giving these dates

200 Editing of the Mishnah (whatever that means)
200 - 450 Main Amoraic period
450 - 500 Persian persecutions - decline of Amoraim
500 - 550 Later Amoraic period
550 Death of Reval of Rov, the last Amora
550 - 600 Persian persecution - beginning of Stammaitic era
600 - 700 Main Stammaitic era, composition of sugyot - [wiki]Gemara#The_Sugya[/wiki]
700 - 750 Later Stammaitic era = Saboraic era: glossing and editing of Proto Talmud; no addition of Amoraic material
730 - 770 Compilers
770 Closing of the Talmud

The Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud: Amoraic or Saboraic (Monographs of the Hebrew Union College) - http://noahbickart.fastmail.fm/Academic ... action.pdf

is a review of this monograph which Amazon offers for over $300.

Anyway, the stuff I've outlined in this thread I think is a relatively new and revolutionary Jewish Studies consensus. I'm not aware of any respectable opposition to this theory.

[semiopen]

DCH brings up some interesting points.

I think he might derive the concept that the Mishnah was actually written down in the early third century because it was apparently used in both the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds at about the same time. This is reasonable of course, but I'm not convinced.

I was concerned that my oral transmission arguments might be based on my misunderstanding what I was reading - this shit isn't exactly Dr. Seuss.

It turns out that we must also consider the Tosefta.

According to rabbinic tradition, the Tosefta was redacted by Rabbis Ḥiya and Oshaiah (a student of Ḥiya).[1] Whereas the Mishna was considered authoritative, the Tosefta was supplementary. The Talmud often utilizes the traditions found in the Tosefta to examine the text of the Mishnah.
The traditional view is that the Tosefta should be dated to a period concurrent with or shortly after the redaction of the Mishnah. This view pre-supposes that the Tosefta was produced in order to record variant material not included in the Mishnah.

Modern scholars call into question the traditional views. (Perhaps we can even make a generalization that the traditional views in Judaism are always wrong)

Rereading the Mishnah: A New Approach to Ancient Jewish Texts - http://www.amazon.com/Rereading-Mishnah ... 3161487133

Judith Hauptman argues that the Tosefta, a collection dating from approximately the same time period as the Mishnah and authored by the same rabbis, is not later than the Mishnah and its associated supplement, the Tosefta, when composing his work.

There are profound implications to this regarding the actual traditional redaction dates

The actual written versus oral question can be studied by searching for Mishnah Orality

Transmitting Mishnah: The Shaping Influence of Oral Tradition - http://www.amazon.com/Transmitting-Mish ... 0521857503

I think this is a doctoral dissertation.

Departing from the conventional view of mishnaic transmission as mindless rote memorisation, Transmitting Mishnah, first published in 2006, reveals how multifaceted the process of passing on oral tradition was in antiquity. Taking advantage of the burgeoning field of orality studies, Elizabeth Shanks Alexander has developed a model of transmission that is both active and constructive.

Anyway, it seems my arguments here have academic merit.

[beowulf]

Interesting post, semiopen.
I am citing this summary from Paul Johnson as an aid to the understanding of possible new findings by researchers.
Any comments?



A HISTORY OF THE JEWS
PAUL JOHNSON
page 153, pdf online.


"Mishnah consisted of three elements: the midrash, that is the method of interpreting the Pentateuch to make clear points of law; the halakhah, plural halakhot, the body of generally accepted legal decisions on particular points; and the aggadah or homilies, including anecdotes and legends used to convey understanding of the law to the ordinary people.Rabbi Judah Ha-Nasi and his school at the end of the second century AD,... this material was edited into a book called the Mishnah.

In addition to the Mishnah, there is a collection of sayings and rulings by the tannaim, four times larger in bulk, known as the Tosefta. The exact provenance, date and composition of the Tosefta—and its precise relationship to the Mishnah—have been subjects of unresolved scholarly dispute for over a thousand years.


Ofcourse, immediately the Mishnah was complete, further generations of scholars— who were, it should be remembered, determining legal theory in the light of actual cases—began to comment upon it. By this time, since the rabbinic methods had spread to Babylonia, there were two centres of commentary, in Eretz Israel and in the Babylonian academies. Both produced volumes of Talmud, a word meaning ‘study’ or ‘learning’, which were compiled by the various generations of the amoraim. The Jerusalem Talmud, more correctly called the Talmud of the West, was completed by the end of the fourth century AD, and the Babylonian Talmud a century later.
Each has folios of commentary dealing with the tractates of the Mishnah. "

[semiopen]

I think Johnson is mistaken. His book seems to have been for mass consumption, and it was written in 1987 before there was a strong group of Rabbinic scholars.

Note how he says that the Mishnah was complete and even edited into a book. I've spent my last several posts discussing this, maybe he is right and all the Rabbinics experts I've quoted are wrong, but if he is, it is because he was lucky.

I've quoted many different wikis which also seem oblivious to any advances in Rabbinic studies. Personally, I was also unaware until I attended the ASJ convention last December. Several posts above, I mentioned that I'm not aware of any strong voices that challenge the concepts I've discussed here.

Orality, Narrative, Rhetoric: New Directions in Mishnah Research http://hartman.org.il/Blogs_View.asp?Ar ... Type=Blogs

In what follows I attempt to explore some of these new developments through two specific case studies: E. Alexander’s application of orality studies to mishnaic research, and several recent studies on ritual narratives in the Mishnah.

It seems that whatever was put into oral tradition by the Rabbis turned into shit, even if there were the best of intentions. This was even with stuff that one might figure they'd get right such as actual descriptions of the temple rituals. After all these were actual things that happened not so long before the Tannaic process started.

One area in which these new studies seem to make a great difference is that of Temple laws and narratives in the Mishnah. The Mishnah contains nearly forty narrative-like descriptions of various rituals, most of which are related to the Temple and its cult.These descriptions – identified by their distinctive narrative-like style: a succession of verbs (e.g. the priest goes, takes, brings etc.), rather then the normal apodictic or casuistic mishnaic style - might occupy a whole tractate (Yoma, Tamid), a chapter (Pesaḥim 10, Nega‘im 14, Parah 3), a single Mishnah unit or even one part of it (Bekhorot 9:7, Zevaḥim 5:3). Several recent studies such as those by Avraham Walfish on tractates Rosh Hashana and Tamid, Yair Lorberbaum, Beth Berkowitz and Chaya Halberstam on capital punishments in Sanhedrin, Daniel Stökl Ben-Ezra on Yoma, and my own study of Sotah, undermine the naive conception of these tractates as authentic descriptions of Temple rituals, recorded when the temple was still functioning or shortly thereafter. According to the new studies these narratives are, by and large, a result of second century debates, fashioning and redaction, and should, accordingly, be taken to represent the concerns of that post Temple era. The Temple and its worship were studied, reshaped and even reinvented, as part of the second century’s all-inclusive legal system, according to the academic needs and interests of its sages.

When I first saw DCH's post, I wasn't so sure about whether the Mishnah was written down. I'm pleased that I seem to have guessed correctly that it wasn't. There seem to be many oral traditions that had some sort of Mishnah at the bottom of it. Much of the material may have been similar but there were significant differences.